PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
103
options
 
Thursday, September 3, 2009

 

A vacation rumination...

On my final day in the mountains - the usual writing regimen resumes next Tuesday - I am reading the Jan. 13, 1970 edition of Look magazine, which I found at an antique show. For those of you too young to know, Look was a powerhouse in pre-wired America. It had seven million readers, and competed fiercely with its chief rival, Life magazine. The way it worked was, you flipped the pages with your forefinger, discovered lavish photo spreads and long, long articles on a range of general-interest subjects, and you didn't have to wait for a download.

Nevertheless, viewed through a contemporary prism, the issue in my hands seems as antique as the furniture in the musty shed. And I'm not referring to the retroactively hilarious ads for airlines ("the Economy seats are almost as roomy as ordinary First-Class seats...and more stewardesses than you've ever seen"), booze ("Grab for all the gusto you can"), cancer sticks ("Longer - Yet Milder"), and General Motors cars that look to be as spacious as yachts.

I'm actually referring to the magazine's sunny predictions of what life will be like in America during the 1970s and beyond. In retrospect, the wild optimism is almost touching. Particularly on the subject of politics.

The magazine predicts that "a new species of politician will soon arise." This species will put a greater premium on "honesty, intelligence, independence, courage, self-sacrifice and vision." This new species will replace the late-60s species that practices "the old politics of insult, gut-fighting and invective. Such tactics are euphemistically called 'going on the attack,' meaning the advance of the warrior-orator who disembowels his adversary and hoists the shredded corpse on a victory pike."

Yep, that old species will surely be doomed during the 1970s; after all, the magazine said, "the governed have become increasingly alienated, confused, and frustrated," and will no longer tolerate the gut fighters who "don't really care about us," and whose bad behavior "masks a poverty of understanding of us and the vast problems that confront us."

Take heart, said the magazine; some "powerful new forces" will help produce the "new political breed." Television, for instance. Television will nurture the new breed, at the expense of the old: "We do not like guests who shout, rant, and harangue us, who insult us or who strike a know-it-all stance in our living room. We expect the guest to converse with us, to seek to persuade us in conciliatory tones and to concede that he is less than fallible."

That forecast turns out to be as quaint as those old '60s sketches that show urban Americans in the year 2000 riding around on monorails. Imagine the despair of Look's forecasters had they known that television would become the home of the 30-second attack ad, in which gentle-voiced female narrators would intone lies and half-truths, with the tab paid by shadowy donors and special interest groups.

And speaking of donors, the magazine lamented about how the old species was beholden to "wealthy individuals and special interest groups, almost all with an economic ax to grind...As long as private money talks, politicians must heed the big talkers." But fear not, said Look, the sun was on the horizon: "There are indications that some kind of public financing of election campaigns is in the offing. If that occurs, the new politician, unfettered by campaign-fund ties to special economic interests, will flower."

Turns out, we got public financing of presidential campaigns in 1976, and today the whole system is basically kaput because the spending limits are too low and because the vast majority of Americans refuse to finance it by checking a box on their tax returns. The special interest money flows unabated, through the legal political action committees, and, meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is reportedly considering an autumn ruling that could make it far easier for corporations to directly spend money on political candidates.

It appears that we will have to wait a bit longer for that new species of politician.

And Look won't be around for that elusively distant day. It died in 1971.

-------

But, for a bit of perspective, consider this anniversary:

Seventy years ago today - on Sept. 3, 1939 - Great Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany, in the wake of Hitler's invasion of Poland. Hitler welcomed the opportunity, declaring in his Sept. 3 proclamation that God was on his side and that anyone who threatened his government "need expect nothing else than annihilation." Such were the remarks that led to the deaths of 50 million people.

So while we grouse about health care and whatever, it's worth remembering that things could be far worse. Enjoy the holiday weekend. Back here on Tuesday.
 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 12:41 PM  Permalink | 103 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:56 PM, 09/03/2009
    Another liberal lamenting the style of politics invented and perfected by liberals. Just look at their reaction to those who oppose Obama's healthcare plan.
    jmc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:21 PM, 09/03/2009
    What's interesting to me is how much we need to be scolded by our parents. How else could one explain the popularity of the shouters on Conservative talk radio and Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC)? Apparently life does imitate art as the success of Peter Finch's Howard Beale character gets played and replayed over and over on our TV's. I thought the old adage was "Sex Sells." I guess the new adage is "Outrage Sells," although some folks refer to that as "Stoking the Base." Still others spin it as "Educating and Enlightening the Uninformed." Never mind that the Edutainment may or may not be true.
    Phrossty
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:22 PM, 09/03/2009
    Oh come on, jmc, both sides are equally to blame. How many times on this site have you called someone an idiot or hurled some other demeaning insult? Until we learn to speak to each other civilly, nothing will change and we can't move forward. It all begins with each one of us.
    NigeltheMastiff
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:30 PM, 09/03/2009
    Is there any one in America besides wealthy special interest groups who wouldn't be for publicly funded elections where each candidate was given the designated air time and ad space to promote their agenda? This is about the only element of our government where a socialist idea makes sense.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:40 PM, 09/03/2009
    Yes things could be worse Dick. We could have a President who was seeking to use the television airwaves to have school children "pledge" to him their allegiance. Oh wait that is happening already...
    Grill
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:43 PM, 09/03/2009
    Nigel. Love thy neighbor? The golden rule is a bit old fashioned and out of place today, much like Look magazine. Politicians want to be photographed going to church, they're not actually interested in what's coming from the pulpit....
    Grazman
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:45 PM, 09/03/2009
    And therein lies the problem, Grazman.
    NigeltheMastiff
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:54 PM, 09/03/2009
    Grill, really. A number of presidents have spoken directly to school children exhorting them to study hard and get the best education they can. GHW Bush did it. Where does all this paranoia come from?
    NigeltheMastiff
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:57 PM, 09/03/2009
    I believe the most recent corpse was Sadaam's which was strung up by a conservative, JMC. Also, Grill, don't believe what the neocon talk-radio talking points tell you. Nobody is pledging Obama their allegiance. Don't let the crazy get you!
    HandNik
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:37 PM, 09/03/2009
    If they are pledging allegiance, is it because Obama's wearing a flag pin?
    RunWrite
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:55 PM, 09/03/2009
    Nigelthemastiff- you said " Oh come on, jmc, both sides are equally to blame. How many times on this site have you called someone an idiot or hurled some other demeaning insult? "............ I don't really see it that way Nigel. I think liberals can be much more nasty. Case in point would be when people where protesting against George Bush or making movies slandoring his character. Bush at the time was rather " ho-hum " about all of it. But the Town Hall protestors are called racist and un-american.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:07 PM, 09/03/2009
    OK. My wife is a public school teacher. I am a conservative and my wife says she agrees with me but she probably just wants to keep the peace. Anway we discussed Obama's address to the school kids on the 1st day of school. My thoughts are that I really don't see the harm in it if the message is to do well, respect the teachers, and emphasize the importance of education. In fact I think that Obama would be a good role model if that is the message of the speech. But if it is a political speech that emphasizes the students supporting him or having to write a paper on how they can support him then it's getting creepy and becomes a form of indoctrination. Today the wife comes home and shows me an email from one of the Parents protesting this airing of Obama's speech at school. But this is what happens when the information is improperly diseminated. No one knows what Obama wants to convey to the students. And their in lies the problem and the paranoa. Almost the same issue with the health care debacle
    mgm65
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:11 PM, 09/03/2009
    SMike, you're just proving my point that both sides are at fault. Hurling insults never achieves anything positive. Neither does shouting down someone because he/she disagrees with your point of view. You may not see the conservatives as being as nasty, but I assure you, I often just leave the site because I'm sick of the insults back and forth from both sides.
    NigeltheMastiff
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:19 PM, 09/03/2009
    Swede, you're kidding, right? Both sides can be pretty nasty. Recall Bush slandering McCain during 2000 about a possible illegimate child from--was it Vietnam? Mrs. McCain wouldn't talk to Bush for years. Recall the attacks on Senator Cleland, a Vietnam vet in a wheelchair having lost both his legs and the use of an arm, being shown in an attack ad along with a photo of bin Laden. There are plenty of other examples over the years. Are we really this blind as a people, so filled with ideology that we can't see beyond our own perceptions?
    RunWrite
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:19 PM, 09/03/2009
    Now this should be an interesting discussion. This is directly from the Department of Education regarding Obama's speech to the classroom. Sorry but this is boardering on indoctrination. I assume they will be removing this nonsense from their website after the cable news programs get a hold of this.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,The address will be broadcast live on the White House website on September 8th at 1:00 p.m. eastern standard time. There are resources available for parents and teachers of children grades preK through 6 at www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.doc.
    mgm65


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.